Search Forums

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Another question for consideration:

(This is another follow-up in my series.)

Have you ever worked with someone who would increase productivity at your place of business…by staying home?

I have…many times. There are some people at almost every place I’ve ever worked who not only do not handle their job adequately…but who are a negative influence on others...causing them to be less productive.

Re: Another question for consideration:

Originally Posted by Frank Apisa

(This is another follow-up in my series.)

Have you ever worked with someone who would increase productivity at your place of business…by staying home?

I have…many times. There are some people at almost every place I’ve ever worked who not only do not handle their job adequately…but who are a negative influence on others...causing them to be less productive.

What about you?

Certainly I have worked with numerous people that negatively affected other peoples productivity, but since if that person were home their work wouldn't be getting don, so I'm not positive that overall productivity would rise.

For instance, if a coworker of mine causes me to be 10% less productive when he is there, I only get 10% more done and somebody still has the do the coworkers work.
Am I making sense??

Re: Another question for consideration:

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Certainly I have worked with numerous people that negatively affected other peoples productivity, but since if that person were home their work wouldn't be getting don, so I'm not positive that overall productivity would rise.

For instance, if a coworker of mine causes me to be 10% less productive when he is there, I only get 10% more done and somebody still has the do the coworkers work.
Am I making sense??

Yeah, you are making sense, Belthazor. You have not had the same experiences I have. My experience is that people who do not want to work…who are lazy…not only do a bad job of what they are doing, but actually cause others to significantly be less productive.

QUICK STORY: There was a time I worked for a local YMCA…doing night clean-up. I’d come in to work just after close up and leave as the place opened in the morning.

During the day…lot of traffic. Very busy. Place was a mess…and my job was to bring it back to looking great for the open. Nothing really back breaking...the pool only had to be vacuumed once a week; the spa and sauna were cleaned about that same schedule; the handball courts, basketball courts, weight room, hallways and offices were no prob! I could get the work done in four hours…sometimes five…and have something to eat, watch a bit of TV, shoot lots of hoops, lift weights, and spend a bit of time in the sauna or hot tub with the remaining time. I loved the job.

Every once in a while, the local judge would send me over “help.” 5 – 6 people who were doing community service for one violation or another.

On those nights…the place never got as clean as when I did it myself…and the loss of time for when the “help” was there…caused me to have to work longer after they left. I had no time (or at least LESS time) for any of those recreational things.

I ‘ve had other experiences with people who are lazy or incompetent…people who did not WANT to work, but who HAD to work, in order to “earn their living.” It has never been a satisfying time.

Okay…as I said, your experience has not been the same.

I suspect, however, that what I experienced about people who did not want to work…is more pervasive than your experience suggests.

Re: Another question for consideration:

Originally Posted by Frank Apisa

Yeah, you are making sense, Belthazor. You have not had the same experiences I have. My experience is that people who do not want to work…who are lazy…not only do a bad job of what they are doing, but actually cause others to significantly be less productive.

QUICK STORY: There was a time I worked for a local YMCA…doing night clean-up. I’d come in to work just after close up and leave as the place opened in the morning.

During the day…lot of traffic. Very busy. Place was a mess…and my job was to bring it back to looking great for the open. Nothing really back breaking...the pool only had to be vacuumed once a week; the spa and sauna were cleaned about that same schedule; the handball courts, basketball courts, weight room, hallways and offices were no prob! I could get the work done in four hours…sometimes five…and have something to eat, watch a bit of TV, shoot lots of hoops, lift weights, and spend a bit of time in the sauna or hot tub with the remaining time. I loved the job.

Every once in a while, the local judge would send me over “help.” 5 – 6 people who were doing community service for one violation or another.

On those nights…the place never got as clean as when I did it myself…and the loss of time for when the “help” was there…caused me to have to work longer after they left. I had no time (or at least LESS time) for any of those recreational things.

I ‘ve had other experiences with people who are lazy or incompetent…people who did not WANT to work, but who HAD to work, in order to “earn their living.” It has never been a satisfying time.

Okay…as I said, your experience has not been the same.

I suspect, however, that what I experienced about people who did not want to work…is more pervasive than your experience suggests.

Well, not that I'm saying you are totally wrong in your assumption, but your example is a bit on one extreme side of the "workforce".

I have worked in fast food and in the kitchen of a pizza place when I was younger, two thankless jobs. People still generally worked pretty hard considering the compensation.
Having said that, I am SURE there are more than plenty of examples to support your position, I just don't see a way to quantify it, so we can realize the extent of the problem, other than just as an opinion.

Re: Another question for consideration:

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Well, not that I'm saying you are totally wrong in your assumption, but your example is a bit on one extreme side of the "workforce".

I have worked in fast food and in the kitchen of a pizza place when I was younger, two thankless jobs. People still generally worked pretty hard considering the compensation.
Having said that, I am SURE there are more than plenty of examples to support your position, I just don't see a way to quantify it, so we can realize the extent of the problem, other than just as an opinion.

I agree with you that the example I offered is extreme. In any case, whether it is extreme...or more nuanced will not make a significant difference when I make the argument I am going to make after my next, and LAST, pre-question.

I just wanted to get a sense of where you folk stood on these things BEFORE making my argument.

The problem you faced is the nature of "slave" labor. Anytime labor is forced it is going to be inefficient.

Yup...it is indeed.

I'm hoping, though, that you see that for SOME people...ANY work is a form of slave labor. There are some people who simply do not want to work...and if forced to do so, will not do it diligently and productively. There also are people marginally competent who will work despite their lack...and while forces will limit how high they go...eventually Peter's Principle will engage.

Re: Another question for consideration:

Originally Posted by FRANK

Yup...it is indeed.

I'm hoping, though, that you see that for SOME people...ANY work is a form of slave labor. There are some people who simply do not want to work...and if forced to do so, will not do it diligently and productively. There also are people marginally competent who will work despite their lack...and while forces will limit how high they go...eventually Peter's Principle will engage.

Yes, that is why I firmly believe that eating is a powerful motivator for work. IE you don't work, you don't eat. Also known as "reality training", when it comes to children.

Re: Another question for consideration:

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

Yes, that is why I firmly believe that eating is a powerful motivator for work.

You are correct, MindTrap, but it is also a "powerful motivator" to steal and kill...and in some cases, is used as a form of control by haves over have nots. So...I don't put as much emphasis on it as you seem to be.

IE you don't work, you don't eat.

Does the child in your lap in your avatar work? Does she eat?

Also known as "reality training", when it comes to children.

I imagine scenarios where that is correct. It also can be known as "I've got mine, screw you" to some people.

Re: Another question for consideration:

Originally Posted by Frank Apisa

(This is another follow-up in my series.)

Have you ever worked with someone who would increase productivity at your place of business…by staying home?

I have…many times. There are some people at almost every place I’ve ever worked who not only do not handle their job adequately…but who are a negative influence on others...causing them to be less productive.

What about you?

Yes, and I ensured those kinds of people do not stay in their position for long! Negative people should find jobs such that their behavior is isolated to affecting only themselves.

Re: Another question for consideration:

I asked, "Does the child in your lap in your avatar work? Does she eat?"

Not trying to bust your chops. I can make a good guess as to the answers...so you are not going to shock me.

Yes, she works, and we are teaching her to work.
I think you are appealing to children as an exception to that rule. Which really is not a justified exemption.
Because the rule still stands that work is required in order for anyone to eat. My children don't eat because they work, they eat because. The rule is about responsible parties, and clearly children are not.

Originally Posted by FRANK

It doesn't. But that is not what I said.

You had mentioned, "Also known as "reality training", when it comes to children."

I replied, "I imagine scenarios where that is correct. It also can be known as "I've got mine, screw you" to some people. Kinda depends on perspective...right?"

I must be naive. I expected you to say, "Yeah...I guess you are right."

I don't see it as perspective relevant. I mean no matter what your perspective if work isn't done, then ... you know.. nothing is produced.
You seem to be talking about attitudes, I'm talking about realities. Like, if you smash your hand with a hammer, it is going to hurt.

And you say something like "better you than me just depends on your perspective".
So no, it isn't a perspective claim.

edit
The thing about "reality training" is that It doesn't require effort from anyone, reality is the teacher.
I don't have to "teach" you that fire is hot... when you stick your hand in a fire.. reality will be your teacher.
Same with work and eating. All I need to do is leave you alone, and you will naturally go without food if you do not work. (This is closed system kind of example.. of course someone else may give you food).

Re: Another question for consideration:

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

Yes, she works, and we are teaching her to work.
I think you are appealing to children as an exception to that rule. Which really is not a justified exemption.
Because the rule still stands that work is required in order for anyone to eat. My children don't eat because they work, they eat because. The rule is about responsible parties, and clearly children are not.

I don't see it as perspective relevant. I mean no matter what your perspective if work isn't done, then ... you know.. nothing is produced.
You seem to be talking about attitudes, I'm talking about realities. Like, if you smash your hand with a hammer, it is going to hurt.

And you say something like "better you than me just depends on your perspective".
So no, it isn't a perspective claim.

edit
The thing about "reality training" is that It doesn't require effort from anyone, reality is the teacher.
I don't have to "teach" you that fire is hot... when you stick your hand in a fire.. reality will be your teacher.
Same with work and eating. All I need to do is leave you alone, and you will naturally go without food if you do not work. (This is closed system kind of example.. of course someone else may give you food).

You seem like a decent guy, MindTrap. I could see having a beer with you and shooting the breeze on a variety of subjects.

But I truly hope that the number of people who think as you do on these kinds of issues...is as low as possible.

We count on each other...and the "I've got mine, screw you" mentality (in any form) is no longer acceptable.

Probably never was. Scientists have found skeletons of primitive peoples who have grown to adulthood despite having debilitating conditions from childhood. Other members of the tribe saw to their welfare.

Re: Another question for consideration:

You seem like a decent guy, MindTrap. I could see having a beer with you and shooting the breeze on a variety of subjects.

But I truly hope that the number of people who think as you do on these kinds of issues...is as low as possible.

We count on each other...and the "I've got mine, screw you" mentality (in any form) is no longer acceptable.

Probably never was. Scientists have found skeletons of primitive peoples who have grown to adulthood despite having debilitating conditions from childhood. Other members of the tribe saw to their welfare.

Ancient bones tell story of compassion.

I haven't argued against charity by any means. Just stating a fact of life. Also, I think equating debilitating conditions with not being able to work is an insult to people with disabilities.
I recall a man in an iron lung who became a lawyer and argued in front of the supreme court. .. or some such, at least an accomplished lawyer.. traveled the world etc. http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/...lung-1.4414081
(i caught that story in one of those vaccine propaganda pieces)

Point is, the fact of life that work must be done in order to eat. .. is not something I'm making up or trying to impose on anyone. It's just a harsh reality of life. We combat it with charity and that is admirable.
I would be willing to be that the hardest workers tend to be the most charitably minded. (I mean giving of their own labor and wealth, it's easy to be generous with someone else labor and money).

Re: Another question for consideration:

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

I haven't argued against charity by any means. Just stating a fact of life. Also, I think equating debilitating conditions with not being able to work is an insult to people with disabilities.
I recall a man in an iron lung who became a lawyer and argued in front of the supreme court. .. or some such, at least an accomplished lawyer.. traveled the world etc. http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/...lung-1.4414081
(i caught that story in one of those vaccine propaganda pieces)

Point is, the fact of life that work must be done in order to eat. .. is not something I'm making up or trying to impose on anyone. It's just a harsh reality of life. We combat it with charity and that is admirable.
I would be willing to be that the hardest workers tend to be the most charitably minded. (I mean giving of their own labor and wealth, it's easy to be generous with someone else labor and money).

Re: Another question for consideration:

I have worked with people that lower the productivity of a team. In software development, this is entirely possible. If someone makes enough bugs and is irresponsible enough, their work can have a negative impact that can carry haunt you for quite a long time.

As a manager, I always considered one of my duties to identify bad apples and get them out of the equation. If someone made enough trouble for others in the team, they either had to change their ways pretty quickly, or find a new job. It's not fair to let a team of good people suffer just so you can keep someone unwilling to adapt to the team dynamic employed.

Re: Another question for consideration:

Originally Posted by Sigfried

I have worked with people that lower the productivity of a team. In software development, this is entirely possible. If someone makes enough bugs and is irresponsible enough, their work can have a negative impact that can carry haunt you for quite a long time.

As a manager, I always considered one of my duties to identify bad apples and get them out of the equation. If someone made enough trouble for others in the team, they either had to change their ways pretty quickly, or find a new job. It's not fair to let a team of good people suffer just so you can keep someone unwilling to adapt to the team dynamic employed.

Good observation, Sigfried. Glad you have seen what I've seen...and in a different, more dynamic, setting.

I hope you stick around to comment on the general thesis I will shortly be making...probably today or tomorrow. I have to go into the cit (NYC) today.

If you haven't visited the other preliminary threads, here they are if you are interested: